Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Anonymous on March 07, 2004, 05:12:00 PM
-
Spots said:
"The goal of this suit is to garner monetary damages for its plaintiffs...which is the obvious goal of about 99% of lawsuits"
I thought it was suppose to be about saving children from abuse? I thought there was a more heroic reason for this suit. I did not realize it was to put money in the pockets of a few.
How will this suit save the children Spots? Or, is that not what it really has been about? Will the settlement be disclosed or will it be kept a "secret." Will those individuals who may or may not recieve payment agree to keep quite about the settlement?
Who, Spots has been recruiting the plantiffs for this suit? Is it Sue and Paula?
-
I believe Spots was honest in her statement. The parents paid for a program that their children refused to work. It is documented so much that these kids cry abuse just to get their parents to believe them and bring them home. For those that buy into their kids delusions, they want their money back. PERIOD. The threat of a lawsuit is enough to keep parents from getting help, not just wwasp but all the other schools out there that are for healing, not hurting. Since wwasp is so large, they are the target, but out of the few that want their money back, there are SO many more, thousands, that can attest to the success and results from seeking help and not turning to quick fixes or just allowing their child to destroy their life in more ways than one.
Yes, money is the purpose. Tiny little minds, as Spots said.
-
The expected spin from program supporters.
It is very likely there would be no lawsuit if the program had not deceived parents and employed BM techniques that any reasonable person would consider abuse. Plain and simple.
How will the lawsuit help to save kids? By bringing the public's attention to the issue. And, as in the class action I was involved in, the program could be required to make substantial changes to the way it operates.
I assume that is the goal and hope of those involved.
And if the parents who were deceived get their money back and then some, all the better.
-
On 2004-03-07 18:39:00, Deborah wrote:
"
The expected spin from program supporters.
You bet I support wwasp. You have no experience of wwasp, so that's an expected spin from you.
It is very likely there would be no lawsuit if the program had not deceived parents and employed BM techniques that any reasonable person would consider abuse. Plain and simple.
Any reasonable person. I supposed the few that are unhappy and believe their child was abused are the reasonable ones? You and a few others have been closed to the hundred of families that disagree with ya'll.
How will the lawsuit help to save kids? By bringing the public's attention to the issue. And, as in the class action I was involved in, the program could be required to make substantial changes to the way it operates.
The only people it will help is those that oppose wwasp - the educational consultants and those that don't get monetary reimbursement for referring to wwasp.
I assume that is the goal and hope of those involved.
What...another ASSumptions from Deborah, go figure!
And if the parents who were deceived get their money back and then some, all the better.
"
It's ALL about the money, don't kid yourself.
-
The only people it will help is those that oppose wwasp - the educational consultants and those that don't get monetary reimbursement for referring to wwasp.
And the people who do refer to WWASP? Don't they get paid?
I get fed up with hearing this line. If you were judging competing recommendations, one from an ed con who openly makes money from commission and one from a program parent swearing that her little Johnny would be deadorinjail if it hadn't been for WWASP, who would you believe? The parent, of course.
How many of these parents mention that they get 1000 bucks a pop (or several times that in credits if little Johnny is still in the program)? And what about all the WWASP referral sites? Do the operators run them as a hobby? Don't tell me they don't get paid. How many of them mention that they only refer to WWASP? Or even mention WWASP? They may not say it but they give the impression that they are recommending a number of unrelated schools as a service to the community.
[ This Message was edited by: Kiwi on 2004-03-08 03:07 ]
-
How will the lawsuit help to save kids? By bringing the public's attention to the issue. And, as in the class action I was involved in, the program could be required to make substantial changes to the way it operates.
I assume that is the goal and hope of those involved.
Deborah you are assuming that the out come of the law suit, assuming their is one, will be publisized. What if it is settled out of court? What if the parties agree to settle it quietly? Remember when this group of people started their crusade they said this case was not about money but it was about saving kids.
Really though Deborah, it is not your assumption that I wanted to hear, it was Spots answer I was seeking. She seems to have an in with the "parties involved." She seems to know that the case is about money as she said 99% of all cases are just that.
Spots will this case be settled in open court with the media involved? Will the details of this case be out there for others to learn from?
-
Spots will this case be settled in open court with the media involved? Will the details of this case be out there for others to learn from?
While spots has her crystal ball out, perhaps she can tell us next week's winning lottery number. Get real. Who can say how it will pan out?
In an ideal world WWASP would publicly admit liability and pay generous compensation. Back in the real world they will fight tooth and nail, laywers will have to be paid, people's financial resources will be limited, outcomes are uncertain and people often have to accept a non-optimal compromise.
The case may be taken on a contingency basis but if the lawyers are financing the action their top priority will be the payout, whatever anyone else's motivation may be. Anyway, why shouldn't the kids get compensation?
-
Kids get compensation? ::noway::
-
KISI - It's the parents that have the experience, first hand, and know about the process, the program, the staff and the changes within the family the occurred. The parents don't ask for a free month for sharing this the parents in crisis. They were there themselves and know how much it means to be able to help another parent. They don't tell the parents what to do. They don't do the admission. More parents share and don't get the free month than do. Tell me another program that helps the parents with the tuition?
If you've read WWASPS vs PURE, you will see that it documented that PURE (Sue Scheff) was very much into making a living from referrals to WWASP until they told her that they would not pay her for referrals if she was referring to other schools. THey don't pay educational consultants or those like PURE that are paid by other schools to refer to them.
This class action, from what I have read, is promoted by PURE to further their agenda.
-
Spots will this case be settled in open court with the media involved? Will the details of this case be out there for others to learn from?
While spots has her crystal ball out, perhaps she can tell us next week's winning lottery number. Get real. Who can say how it will pan out?
In an ideal world WWASP would publicly admit liability and pay generous compensation. Back in the real world they will fight tooth and nail, laywers will have to be paid, people's financial resources will be limited, outcomes are uncertain and people often have to accept a non-optimal compromise.
The case may be taken on a contingency basis but if the lawyers are financing the action their top priority will be the payout, whatever anyone else's motivation may be. Anyway, why shouldn't the kids get compensation?
Well then Kiwi, they have not set out to do what they claimed to have been doing from the very beginning. If they accept a quiet settlement, then they have helped no one but themselves. I remember reading many posts about this class action and how it was going to expose WWASP for all their "wrong doings." How can they expose them (WWASP) if they (the plantiffs and their attorneys) accept the money quietly.
-
On 2004-03-08 08:16:00, Anonymous wrote:
This class action, from what I have read, is promoted by PURE to further their agenda.
Yes. And Hitler promoted war against Stalin to further his agenda. Neither one was a good guy.
If it weren't so sad, it would be funny seeing WWASPies point the finger about money grubbing. Get some reality, folks! You YOU are paying or have paid tens of thousands of dollars to have your kids kept in accomodations in what wouldn't fetch $50/night in some third world tourist trap. The staff is not professional and not paid very well. There is no highly skilled kitchen team; no hors riding or sailboarding instructor. No real expenses at all, except of course that of defending against the inevitable lawsuits from a continual stream of unhappy former customers.
Who's all about the money here?
Boundary, n. In political geography, an imaginary line between two nations, separating the imaginary rights of one from the imaginary rights of another.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
-
Well then Kiwi, they have not set out to do what they claimed to have been doing from the very beginning. If they accept a quiet settlement, then they have helped no one but themselves. I remember reading many posts about this class action and how it was going to expose WWASP for all their "wrong doings." How can they expose them (WWASP) if they (the plantiffs and their attorneys) accept the money quietly.
Who are "they"? There are many plaintifs, not all of whom have posted here and elsewhere, each with their own motivations and few of them at all interested in PURE. What they want to achieve and what they manage to achieve are two different things.
By the way, the purpose of civil courts is to provide compensation to the victims of injustice. Airing dirty laundry is just an occasional, if welcome, by-product.
-
Who are "they
"They" are the plaintiffs. Are we now trying to separate ourselves from PURE? Why?
Don't play dumb now, we all know where, when, why and how this case originated. We know how hard Sue and Paula have worked to pull all of these plaintiffs together.
-
conspiracy - the act of conspiring
conspire - to plan together in secret
I can see it. Why did it all have to be done in secret? Is it because some of those who were party to the activity were doing something wrong?
-
Uuuhhh....this whole thread has taken off in some really weird directions, thanks to a very fanatic Anon. This WWASPie Anon has a tricky way with quotes, or she doesn't know how to respond without the "yellow", so I've given up wading through her babbling and can't really address what the heck she's talking about.
To go back to the basics;
...this is a legal action, in which a good law firm has a contingency interest. This is just fine, and is the way that 99% of such matters are processed. There's money to be made, and Huron and Masrey is a business. ALL businesses are working for the money, even if they are St. Jude's Hospital or the Sierra Club, since all businesses need money to continue. The prospect of a large profit ($$$$ :eek: ) also tends to involve the more competent legal minds, as one would have to think twice before handing such a volatile case to 4 new law school graduates operating out of a storefront, eager to change the world with their first case.
...PURE and Sue and Paula are zooming in from Left Field again. When all else fails, Anon, you can always drag these names into the conversation. 99% of your readers will say, "Huh?"
...Deborah has no experience of WWASPS, so she has invalid input? This is really stupid, as we know that Deborah has scads of background information, has researched this INDUSTRY [WWASPS is absolutely no different from any other behavior modification group], and is an intelligent, articulate, and accurate voice in Fornits. FWIW, I DO have experience with WWASPS, and I know it sucks, Big Time.
...let's see, on 3/07/04 at 15:19, Anon mentioned "...SO many more, thousands, that can attest to the success...". On 3/07/04 at 18:39, Anon mentions "...hundred [sic] of families that disagree with ya'll." Hundreds, thousands???..., close enough. Suffice it to say A LOT, huh, Anon? How many kids-turned-adults, 5 years or so out of The Program?
...I don't believe any plaintiff in this suit has stated that the primary goal of this action is to stop abuse. There are as many reasons as there are plaintiffs for joining this suit, and I suspect bringing down the vehicle of their torment (WWASPS) is paramount in their minds. However, a civil suit does not work that way. One cannot go into court and "shut down" a business by claiming they abuse. That is not the function of a civil court. That is a legislative or criminal action. Publicity is a strong weapon, as is depleting the coffers of the defendent by winning a large judgement against them. But a civil suit is a very good way to implement one's vision, and there is nothing wrong with going this direction. Remember, Al Capone was finally beaten by the Feds for evading income tax...not murder, mayhem, and racketeering... but evading income tax, a proveable Federal offense. Same end result; clever method to enforce the public's will.
The legal suit being formulated by Huron Law is just one arm of the tentacles that will envelop WWASPS. The really sad thing is that there are parents (hundreds? thousands?) who are so at odds with their children that they hire an expensive intermediary to implement what they cannot. It is OK with them if their children are poorly fed, under-educated, isolated, harangued, beaten down emotionally by other kids, made to give up their own personalities in favor of The Party Line, made to lose their childhood, and eventually alienated from the parents that every person should have. If all we can do is bring the light of truth to the deceitfull advertising, try to expose the more-intelligent parents to what real BM practices are, to encourage parents that what they are going through with their incorrigible teenagers is really pretty normal (even extensive drug use), then we will have triumphed. We can't fight all the windmills of clueless and evil parents, but we can make it very hard to shunt children off into the dark and abandon them. If children are being abused, Society has to step in when parents fail. That's all there is to it.
-
So Spots answer the question, will these parents settle this case quietly? This case has gone from something public, as it has been anounced over and over again on public boards, to something quite the contrary. If you don't join, meaning if one does not claim abuse, then one doesn't get to know the outcome? Is that the way it is going to be? Are you saying that those of us who are trying to find the truth based on all the claims these plaintifs have made may never know the truth? Wow, I guess that means these plaintifs get paid and then they just walk away and let the abuse of other peoples children just go on? That is pretty sad. I can't imagine that people can claim such rampant abuse...yet just take some money for it and walk away. What kind of plaintifs are these?
-
Gee Spots. You have crossed the line many times in stating your opinions. I guess underfed means they don't eat steak every day or they have an unlimited supply of ice cream or can open the fridge and eat anytime they are bored. You seem like an enabler from what I've read and think that kids deserve to have whatever they want. No self control. How long will it take for wwasps to sue you for defamation? Maybe you're just too small in their eyes. In my eyes you are obsessed with making up for your own lack of self control by blaming someone for your failure in raising your own daughter to fit your mold. Good news is that you have a grand daughter that you seems moldable.
-
On 2004-03-08 15:13:00, Anonymous wrote:
"So Spots answer the question, will these parents settle this case quietly? This case has gone from something public, as it has been anounced over and over again on public boards, to something quite the contrary. If you don't join, meaning if one does not claim abuse, then one doesn't get to know the outcome? Is that the way it is going to be? Are you saying that those of us who are trying to find the truth based on all the claims these plaintifs have made may never know the truth? Wow, I guess that means these plaintifs get paid and then they just walk away and let the abuse of other peoples children just go on? That is pretty sad. I can't imagine that people can claim such rampant abuse...yet just take some money for it and walk away. What kind of plaintifs are these?
"
I agree, this is sad. But is anyone really surprised? Think about it. Or rather, the "cause" that apparently, has been lost in the aftermath. What a travesty.
:cry:
-
On 2004-03-08 09:08:00, Antigen wrote:
[/quote]
If it weren't so sad, it would be funny seeing WWASPies point the finger about money grubbing. Get some reality, folks! You YOU are paying or have paid tens of thousands of dollars to have your kids kept in accomodations in what wouldn't fetch $50/night in some third world tourist trap. The staff is not professional and not paid very well. There is no highly skilled kitchen team; no hors riding or sailboarding instructor. No real expenses at all, except of course that of defending against the inevitable lawsuits from a continual stream of unhappy former customers.
[/quote]
Ginger - After all this time of assumptions about a WWASP school, I've yet to hear that you've visited one. Are you against any program that teaches values? What are yours?
One of their schools has an equestrian program - are you saying they don't have a "horseman" there to teach them?
http://cc.carolinasprings.com/student_life (http://cc.carolinasprings.com/student_life)
-
Values?
"Teaches values"?!!!
I have a huge problem with incarcerating young people without trial or civil commitment hearing to "teach them values."
If, at fourteen, a child doesn't already more or less share the parents' values, then there's a good chance that there's either something wrong with those parents or something wrong with those values.
Now, not a *certainty* that the "values" are flawed ones, or that the parents are flawed ones, but it's *certainly* worth having some disinterested, responsible person brought in to ask the question of whether the teen really has a condition that necessitates residential treatment, and whether the organization/institution chosen provides services appropriate to that condition or contraindicated with that condition.
One size does not fit all.
If you're a Zoroastrian, you shouldn't be able to ship off your teen to a school that "teaches values" just because you're upset that the teen is agnostic or Gnostic or Coptic or whatever.
(I deliberately chose obscure religions or sects to avoid anything any discussion participants might be---I'm speaking in hypotheticals.)
"Teaches values" is too easily a euphemism for "no, Johnny, you can't be an apostate from Mommy and Daddy's religion."
While I think it's a bad idea, I am reluctantly okay with parents being allowed to force their teens to attend their church. I am also somewhat less reluctantly okay with parents being allowed to prevent their teen from openly practicing a religion the parents disapprove of.
I am totally *NOT* okay with parents sending their kids to brainwashing facilities to *force* the kids to *believe* the parents' religion---or some set of "values" consistent with the parents' religion.
And I am unconvinced that there are adequate safeguards to prevent all these schools conspicuously owned and operated by Mormons from serving as Mormon reeducation camps for teens who just aren't buying Mommy and Daddy's religion.
Put the safeguards in place, and I don't have problems with private boarding schools teaching whatver religion they want to teach.
Without the safeguards, you bet your boots my hackles rise over some snaky/syrupy "schools that teach values" rhetoric.
Forcing teens into a religion is conversion by the sword, and no matter what the religion, when it comes to conversion by the sword, I'm agin' it.
-
Personal values.........not the parent's values. To learn to respect the parents values, but to live their own. So you don't believe in kids learning to value their own life or find what gives them passion in a healthy way?
-
One of their schools has an equestrian program - are you saying they don't have a "horseman" there to teach them?
Knowing the way WWASP plays fast and loose with the English language, that probably means they have a donkey.
-
They probably have a donkey. . .
Not that there?s anything wrong with that!
But do they have a horse? If so, what kind of shape is the animal in? Is it well feed; wormed on a regular basis; well trimmed and shod; Washed and Groomed and Curried as it should be; Is there more than one, and or, does it have a companion to keep it company? Is there adequate pasture, safely fenced, and clean well kept stalls?
What kind of shape is the tack in? Is the leather well oiled and kept clean? Are the fittings checked and inspected as they should be prior to putting a student in the saddle?
Are the 'students' taught to ride; or just thrown up on the horse and allowed to yank it around and call it riding?
Are they taught ground safety; or at risk for getting their heads kicked off?
Are all the 'students' permitted to interact with the horse or horses? Maybe in gradually progressing way? Clean stalls, water and feed, level one. Groom and curry, level two; Ride at a walk and trot in the ring, level three - at a canter level 4; on the trail level 5 and 6.
I suspect no students gets near the horse or horses until level 4,5 and 6. Being as interaction with an animal and caring for one, can greatly facilitate health and healing.
Health and healing seemingly being the opposite of the program goal in the first few levels.
There have been accounts of animal cruelty from Dundee students; and accounts of "consequences" if a lower level was caught petting the dog.
I hate to think of such people as this having a horse under their care; as the animal is more helpless than the most helpless kid.
-
The referenced website for CSA reads (in part):
All activities strive for a proper balance of recreation, exercise, learning, personal development and social opportunities. Initially, all students are restricted to activities on campus. Over a period of time, students may earn the privilege of participating in off-campus activities.
***One activity, a visit to the Carolina State Legislature, was written up glowingly in The Source. Of interest is the fact that a personal visit to the office of the Carolina legislator that was the "high point" is the same legislator whose own child was sent to CSA for several years.***
-------------------------------------------------
The student alternates between morning and afternoon sessions of school, daily group support sessions, physical fitness, and library time. Educational and emotional growth videos, and motivational tapes are played daily.
***Poor parents...it sounds good on paper, but the reality told by "hundreds" of kids is one of "school sessions" time alone with a check-the-box workbook, "group support sessions" where kids have a free-for-all and are encouraged to ravage other kids' private thoughts written the night before in Reflections, "physical fitness" of laps around a walled-off courtyard or hours in the sun weeding the landscaping or washing staff cars, "library time" in a small room full of "Chicken Soup for 'the Everything' [kid's words] level of literature.***
------------------------------------------------
Local off-campus agencies offer weekly counseling sessions for alcohol and sexual abuse. A psychologist is available on campus five days a week and may be independently contracted by parents for private counseling sessions.
***Dr. Marc Chappius is "available" at exhorbitant fees, and only appears on a random infrequent basis. Medical care by the "nurse" is also suspect, as witnessed by several former students, as well as the Carolina Department of Health in its on-going battle with the unlicensed facility. The length of this battle may have something to do with intervention by the above-mentioned legislator intimately involved with CSA.***
-------------------------------------------------
Upper level students are also offered opportunities to participate in the CSA Leadership Program which consists in assisting staff with parent tours and coaching students throughout the day.
***Ask any student or parents about the leadership opportunities of total freedom in orchestrating a child's life, one in which points are earned by giving out consequences to underlings. Leadership also means escorting parents and visitors on "edited" tours, carefully leading them into approved areas only, with conversation and outright lying about what life might really mean for the child whose parents send him to CSA without contact or parental involvement/supervision. This is part of the Leadership Program? Since when is deceit a value to teach children?
-------------------------------------------------
On campus activities include basketball, football, soccer, volleyball, softball, hiking, gardening & fishing. CSA also offers a full on-site equestrian program to trust level students. Other on campus activities include movies and popcorn, monthly birthday parties, crocheting, puzzles, board games, journal and letter writing, reading, drawing and painting.
***A full and safe equestrian program? How many teenage girls are enticed with this feature? Mom probably points to the advertising..."they have horses, darling"...and the kid goes along with it. Sounds a lot like the Judas goat who leads his species calmly to the slaughterhouse. FWIW, The Source magazine had an article long ago about the "equestrian program" at Dundee Ranch [since shut down, and owned by the same Narvin Lichfield as CSA]. A young man was shown sitting on a Costa Rican horse, and his first-person story told of being bucked off, getting back on, and conquering his problems by this action. Of interest to me as a knowledgeable horseperson was the picture: rail-thin scrawny horse (not cared for properly by any "equestrian program"), its head hanging sadly while standing on asphalt (dangerous), kid in T-shirt and tennis shoes (very bad), loosely holding rope reins at chest level (way dangerous), with a big grin. Conspicuously absent was the kid's helmet!!! Yikes!!! This young man was plunked on a sad local horse, sent off without the most basic safety gear, no knowledge of riding, and HE PROUDLY CLAIMS HE WAS BUCKED OFF!!! I don't believe it. Was he bucked off onto the asphalt before or after this picture? Would a caring parent be satisfied with this sort of child endangerment? Isn't this abuse?***
-------------------------------------------------
Trust level CSA students are offered a variety of off campus activities including choral performances, debate, roller and ice skating, dining out with local community members, fishing, golf, swimming, and other water sports. Occasional excursions are offered to nearby national forests, local high school and college sporting events, historical sites, popular beaches and theme parks.
***Will the student who actually went golfing, to the beach, and to a theme park please stand up and be counted? Do they tell parents that "trust level" kids have spent about 2 years and $100,000 to get their one-time trip off campus? Do they tell parents that this Trust Level student represents a tiny fraction of inmates, and the activities must be crammed into the short couple of months at the end of the Program before the kid graduates or turns 18 and leaves? A funny story is of one mother who wrote her son in Mexico, asking if she should send his swim trunks and fins right away, as the weather was warming quickly. Son later said the kids got a real laugh out of that one.***
It is impossible to put every-day experience into analyzing this CSA advertising because no one can expect the reality that is WWASPS. That is our job here, folks. Tell it like it REALLY is.
-
Tell it like it REALLY is.
Spots, tell it like it is, READ THE ENROLLMENT AGREEMENT. It spells everything out very clearly.
FYI, the parents don't sign the glossy brochures, they sign the enrollment agreement. They know what they are signing up for or more specifically, they know what they are signing up for in which their kids are not going to get.
The parents are not blind going in. You may have been blind to knowing what your granddaughter was being signed up for if you did not see the agreement before hand, but her mother knew full well what the program was about.
-
Spots, tell it like it is, READ THE ENROLLMENT AGREEMENT. It spells everything out very clearly.
NO, it dose not.
-
Spots, tell it like it is, READ THE ENROLLMENT AGREEMENT. It spells everything out very clearly.
somehow, I highly doubt that. Would you please post a copy of an enrollent agreement so we can judge for ourselves?
They know what they are signing up for or more specifically, they know what they are signing up for in which their kids are not going to get.
Huh??
The parents are not blind going in. You may have been blind to knowing what your granddaughter was being signed up for if you did not see the agreement before hand, but her mother knew full well what the program was about."
Well, that's not something I'm willing to just take your word for. Seen to many that completely gloss over what REALLY happens. Again, please post an example.Homeschool is self regulating. The school board is not going to have illiterate useless people living in their homes forever if they don't have a working education policy.
--Sisterbluerose
-
Well, if you are an overweight person, do you have a God-given right to sue fast-food restaurants for feeding you food that is "fattening"? Stay tuned. Congress is reviewing the so-called Cheeseburger Bill and if it moves forward, it's not going to be so easy for consumers to file lawsuits against fast-food establishments.
Hold the cheese, please?
-
great fucking comparison idiot
-
On 2004-03-10 10:58:00, Anonymous wrote:
"great fucking comparison idiot"
Thanks, glad you saw the comparison, even if you missed the point, you imbecile. The point is Congress sure seems interested in protecting the KFC's of the world, but when it comes to proposing legislation to protect kids from a billion dollar industry that profits from institutionalizing them without due-process, sorry, that's a PARENTAL issue. We got more important things to do like vote on the Cheeseburger Bill.
:smokin: